We regret that the post is extra late today. We had some stumbling blocks along the way.

Trumponomics: A Trade War, Based on Pretzel Logic

Yesterday, Donald Trump nominated Stephen Miran to the seat on the Federal Reserve that was vacated by Joe Biden appointee Adriana Kugler. Miran is currently Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, having been confirmed to that post in March of this year. Assuming he is confirmed (likely), he will serve as a governor until (at least) January 31.

The basic goal here—to have a Trump administration insider on the Fed Board of Governors, advocating for Trumponomics—is clear. Beyond that, there are some big questions with no answers. Obviously, someone cannot be on the Federal Reserve AND be a member of the administration at the same time, but will that actually be honored here? Even if Miran formally resigns his current post, he could still visit the White House on a regular basis to share "advice." Beyond that, what's the plan in January? It seems improbable that Trump would want to lose an economist who: (1) has a Ph.D. from Harvard and (2) always tells the President what he wants to hear. We would guess that the plan is to re-nominate Miran to the seat once the balance of the Kugler term is complete in January. Alternatively, Miran could return to his current job. If the latter proves to be the case, then it REALLY raises questions about how much of a resignation this actually is.

All of this said, the primary reason we lead with Miran is that most of the pieces written about the appointment described him as the "architect" of Donald Trump's tariff plans. When we first saw that characterization, we were a bit taken aback. It is true, Miran is a key economic adviser in this White House. It is also true that he is a highly educated economist who wrote a paper entitled "A User's Guide to Restructuring the Global Trading System."

However, Miran's paper was not peer-reviewed, and did not appear in any sort of scholarly publication. It was, instead, posted to the website of Hudson Bay Capital Management, which is involved in a bunch of different parts of the financial services sector, including hedge funds and private equity. That means that Miran was free to engage in a bunch of off-topic political grandstanding; Trump himself is mentioned no fewer than 56 times in the body of the document. It also means that Miran could unfurl his statistics and his "analysis" without any sort of pushback from the people most likely to see the holes in his arguments (and trust us, there are many times, on reading over the paper, that we were reminded of the old line about "lies, damned lies, and statistics").

But beyond the fact that Miran's "architectural rendering," if we may call it that, is dubious at best, is there really any reason to believe that the Trump administration has followed ANY coherent plan on tariff policy—Miran's or otherwise? The first major wave of tariffs, as everyone knows at this point, were slapped on anyone and everyone, including, in one case, an island full of Australian penguins. Those tariffs were, by all indications, the product of nonsensical math, and math that was probably provided by AI. Since then, they've been on again, off again. They have also been revised up, or down, based primarily on Trump's personal feelings. Slate's Fred Kaplan also has a Ph.D. (albeit in political science). He wrote a piece this week headlined "Trump's Official Trade Policy Is to Be As Incoherent As Possible," with the subhead, "Tax rates are being set by a mix of the president's confusion, avarice, and personal grievance." We recognize, of course, that Slate and Kaplan are both left-leaning. But that outlet's characterization gets much closer to the truth of things, in our view, than the notion that there is someone in the White House who served as "architect" of a coherent policy, with a clear set of goals. The notion that the trade war is a haphazard mess, with no clear underlying logic, is going to inform our conclusions from here out, so keep that in mind.

In any event, the trade war has now arrived... kinda. The deadline that Trump announced, 12:01 a.m. ET on Thursday, arrived and no further trade deals/frameworks were announced, so the harsh duties promised by the White House have (theoretically) been imposed. Now, every nation's imports to the United States will face levies of at least 10%. There are 67 nations where the rate will be at least 15%, and for 21 of those 67, the rate will be greater than 15%. The nations whose goods will be hit the very hardest are Brazil (50%), Laos (40%), Myanmar (40%), Switzerland (39%), Iraq (35%) and Serbia (35%). Keep in mind that Trump regularly changes his mind on a whim, such that any or all of these figures could become out of date at any time. For example, he's warned that India is about to be hit with a steep increase, because it continues to trade with Russia. If the President follows through on that, then that nation would join Brazil in the 50% club. He's also threatened a 100% tariff on semiconductors, a 250% tariff on pharmaceuticals, and a bunch of other targeted rates like that.

The reason that we write that the trade war has "kinda" arrived is not the extremely fungible nature of the rates, however. It's that collection of most of the duties will not start immediately. As we have noted a couple of times, Trump gave an "out" for goods already in transit, such that the tariffs will not be fully imposed until early October. And Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent spoke to many media outlets this week, some of them legit, some of them Fox, to make clear that the Thursday deadline is not a big deal, and that those nations are free to keep negotiating. This all sure seems like a strategy to largely postpone the latest deadline, but without a bunch more "Trump always chickens out" (TACO) stories and memes.

That said, thus far, TACO has been on the mark. And the thing that invariably spooks Trump is the response of the markets. Yesterday, the Dow Jones was down 0.5% and the S&P 500 fell 0.1%, while the Nasdaq Composite was up 0.4%. Meanwhile, 10-year Treasury yields were up in yesterday's auctions. That means that buyers (aka the people lending money to the government) demanded higher interest rates for their investments. That, in turn, means that the market is more leery about U.S. government debt, and that the government thus has to pay more to borrow money. If that were to continue, it would be a real problem for the federal balance sheet, especially given that the BBB was based substantially on magic accounting and wishful thinking.

The point is that the trade war isn't quite here yet—at least, not the full-blown version of the trade war. Maybe it will slowly arrive over the next couple of months. Or maybe, next week, there will be another TACO Tuesday. Or maybe most/all of the nations targeted for high rates will work out a trade deal/framework/firm promise written in lipstick on toilet paper. If we said we knew what is going to happen, we would be lying.

What we do know, however, is that—largely due to the fact that Trump's trade policy is haphazard, and being driven by a man who is mercurial at best, and losing his cognitive abilities at worst—the administration has painted itself into several corners that it will not be easy to get out of.

First up, the White House continues to brag about how much money its tariffs are bringing into the United States. Indeed, just moments before the Thursday deadline hit, Trump posted this to his not-subject-to-tariffs-so-what-do-I-care? social media platform:

IT'S MIDNIGHT!!! BILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN TARIFFS ARE NOW FLOWING INTO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!

We would really like to know: Was Trump, who is generally known as an early-to-bed, early-to-rise type, sitting there at 11:58 p.m. ET, finger hovering over the "post" button, just waiting to send that message? Or, does he actually know how to schedule a message in advance? Was there a staffer whose job it was to make the posting at the appointed time? However it happened, other members of the administration made sure to reiterate the talking point. For example, Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick appeared on Fox Business Channel to predict that the tariffs would produce revenues of $50 billion a month or more.

There are, in our view, two problems with this braggadocio. The first is that it makes it much harder for Trump to back down, since he and his underlings have framed this as such an important benefit and achievement. The second, and much more serious, is something we have already pointed out several times. Trump and his administration can certainly make the claim that the tariffs are being paid by foreign countries and producers, and that the billions of dollars raised are coming out of the hides of Brazil, India, China, Japan, the E.U., etc. Indeed, he makes that claim in his midnight message, that the money is "flowing into" the United States. But claiming that does not make it so.

It's Economics 101 that the costs of tariffs are borne mostly by consumers, not by producers. Anybody who has taken an econ class surely knows this. Heck, anyone who's taken a U.S. history class probably knows this. Remember that the kerfuffle about tariffs in the late 1820s and 1830s was because Southern states did not want to receive less money for their exported cotton, and did not want to pay more for manufactured goods, due to higher tariffs. Never once did John C. Calhoun or any of the other Southern fire-eaters say: "We oppose these tariffs because we just don't think it's fair that France and the U.K. should be forced to contribute to the national treasury. Now, get me another mint julep."

Democrats running for office this year, next year, and very likely in 2028, will do everything they can to make clear that tariffs are a sales tax on American consumers, taking money out of the pockets of American families (and, on the whole, in a very regressive fashion). Undoubtedly, most Democratic voters already believe this, some because they understand how tariffs work, others because they reflexively hate anything Trump does. We imagine that many independents will be won over to this point of view (if they are not there already), and that some Republicans will be, too (again, if they are not there already). The blue team's Trump card, as it were, is results. There is no doubt that, if Trump does not back down, things are going to get noticeably more expensive for the average family. The best estimates are around $2,400 less purchasing power per household, though it could get worse if the double whammy of paying tariffs AND inflation kicks in. It's not too hard to say: "Voters, the tariffs are coming from YOUR pockets! Look how much more expensive that TV/iPhone/car was, as compared to this point a year ago!"

Now, let's shift gears, and talk about a second messy problem. Readers will recall that, at the outset, we gave credit to Trump for "winning" in his negotiations with the E.U. Then we took a second look, with the benefit of a bit more information, and bit more time to reflect, and were less impressed. And then we took a third look, and decided that these trade deals look an awful lot like an "emperor's new clothes" situation, where there is actually no "there" there.

This is now something of a consensus view, it appears, as the trade frameworks (which are informal, and unsigned) are getting shakier by the day. It is true that the E.U. and Japan, among others, are now subject to 15% tariffs (or will be, once October arrives). However, by making a "deal" with Trump, they kept their rates from being higher, while giving themselves time to maneuver, often by bickering about what exactly was agreed to in these informal, unsigned agreements. For example, just yesterday, and for the third time, Japanese officials launched a round of "I know you think you understand what you thought I said but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant." Obviously, if these nations decide that playing nice is no longer useful, they could, at any time, impose retaliatory tariffs. The E.U. deal is especially fragile, since those nations will only sublimate their sovereignty so much before acting in their own best interests. Indeed, Germany has already begun maneuvering that might cause it to have a different trade deal from the E.U. one.

Even more vapory than the tariff rates are the hundreds of billions of dollars in investments that these entities promised to Trump, as part of their trade frameworks. As we have already noted, none of these promises involved money from the respective governments involved. It was all promises of private investment, which the national governments cannot compel. To put it another way, the various European and Asian negotiators were expressing something aspirational, and something that, if it does happen, would happen with or without the trade framework. After all, transnational businesses are quite literally in the business of seizing profit opportunities in any nations where they can find them.

A new blog posting from economics Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman, late of The New York Times, makes clear that Trump's understanding of the investment promises is radically different (and thanks to reader S.C.-M. in Scottsdale, AZ, for bringing the blog post to our attention). Krugman watched Trump's much-hyped appearance on CNBC on Tuesday, and noted that the President described the $600 billion commitment from the E.U. as a "gift" and claimed it is: "$600 billion to invest in anything I want. Anything. I can do anything I want with it."

Obviously, and as Krugman points out, there is no way that a foreign government is going to create a de facto slush fund for Trump, particularly at that level. Giving him a free airplane? Maybe. Picking up part of the tab for a space for Trump to hold his balls? Maybe. But no nation (or confederation) is in a position to, or would be willing to pay, in effect, a bribe that is north of half a trillion dollars. So, it only requires common sense to know that Trump is either lying, or that he misunderstood, when it comes to this claim (and he's made the exact same claim about the money promised by South Korea). And beyond common sense, these nations have already come out and said that the money is not what Trump thinks it is.

So, what will happen when one of the "trade framework" nations decides to adopt reciprocal tariffs? Or when it becomes clear that Trump is NOT getting a slush fund (and, in fact, that much of the "promised" money is not forthcoming)? He could back down, but that would be embarrassing and un-macho, and is not his style. What is vastly more likely is that, instead of backing down, he will double down, and will impose even stiffer tariff rates on Japan, or the E.U., or some other nation.

The problem here, as the Krugman piece points out, is that Trump has already used up most of his trade gunpowder. The various nations affected by tariffs are already working to do the rational thing, and to redirect as much of their trade as possible away from the United States. Krugman estimates that the 15% tariffs, in the case of the E.U., will result in trade with the U.S. to drop to 2% of the GDP of those nations (from the current 3%). That's not nothing, but it's not fatal. If the tariffs were to jump to 35%, he estimates the additional drop in trade would be just 0.7% of GDP. What that means is that the 15% tariffs were and are a meaningful threat, because that's where the pain is. Anything above that, however, is a case of quickly diminishing returns. So, if Trump can't get what he wants out of the 15% threat, he's not likely to get what he wants out of a 35% threat. And the administration's position gets weaker, day by day, and month by month, as nations permanently re-orient their supply chains, and so become permanently less reliant on trade with the U.S.

There is also a related problem. If any (or most, or all) of Trump's trade frameworks fall apart, for whatever reason, and result in him throwing a temper tantrum and reneging, then nobody is going to be willing to do deals with him or his administration anymore.

Messy problem #1, then, is the trade war itself, where the administration cannot move forward, and cannot move backward, without taking some serious damage. Messy problem #2 is the trade frameworks, which look more and more like houses of cards. We'll finish, briefly, with messy problem #3, which is the pending litigation against the administration, which is premised on the argument that the tariffs are illegal. There are actually two separate arguments (and there are several different lawsuits). The first argument is that there is no "national emergency" that justifies Trump's tariffs. The second is that even if there was a national emergency, Congress was not entitled to delegate tariff-setting power to the executive branch.

Truth be told, losing in court is probably the best outcome for Trump, even if he doesn't think so. That would allow him to end the trade wars, and to point the finger at someone besides himself. Even so, this outcome would entail at least three downsides. The first would be the embarrassment of being rebuked by the courts, especially since Trump presents himself as so strong and manly that no damn judge or judges get to tell him what to do. The second is that there would still be some economic fallout, as markets have already been disrupted, supply chains have already been reworked, and trade relationships have already been damaged. The third is that if the "emergency" tariffs are illegal, then they are all illegal, including the ones that have already been paid. So, the administration could find itself in the position of being ordered to refund the billions it's already collected. That is a process that would be messy, to say the least.

We did not quite expect to write 4,000 words on this subject, but that's how it goes, sometimes. The executive summary is this: One way or another, one of the key elements of Trump's political program, and one of the areas where he's done the most bragging about his "accomplishments," is likely to go belly up eventually, either at the wrong end of a judge's gavel, or at the wrong end of an economic/foreign backlash. And the cost will be some amount of losing face, and some amount of economic turmoil. And basically, those two things exist on a spectrum, such that the less there is of one, the more there is of the other.

Even if Trump were to decide today that he wanted to end the trade wars completely, he and the country would both take damage. There's no penalty-free "Eject" button available, not anymore. At this point, the only question is how much damage will be done to Trump (and his political party), how much will be done to the country, and on what kind of timeline. (Z)

L'Etat C'est Trump: Maybe Antifa Was on to Something

Just in case throwing a giant wrench into the economy wasn't enough, Donald Trump has spent much time this week, particularly in the latter part of the week, channeling his inner fascist. Here is a rundown of the biggest stories on this front:

1. The Census: The 1A headlines yesterday were primarily devoted to Trump's announcement that he is ordering a new census, and one that does not include undocumented immigrants. Here is the actual message he sent out:

   I have instructed our Department of Commerce to immediately begin work on a new and highly accurate CENSUS based on modern day facts and figures and, importantly, using the results and information gained from the Presidential Election of 2024. People who are in our Country illegally WILL NOT BE COUNTED IN THE CENSUS. Thank you for your attention to this matter!

   Because of the manner in which Trump made the announcement, there is much that is not clear. To start, is he trying to conduct a new census, on a quicker timeline than would normally be the case? Or is he merely trying to change the rules for the next regular census?
   
   Whatever the case may be, there are all kinds of potential problems here. If he's trying to squeeze in a new census, Congress would have to fund that (which, to be honest, they probably would bend over and agree to). However, even with the funding, the logistics of conducting a census on anything other than the normal cycle would be daunting. Planning for the regular census is already well underway, which pretty much tells you that the planning takes 5-6 years. So, trying to conduct a new census by, say, 2028 would be nearly impossible.
   
   And whether Trump's plan is to order a brand-new census, or just to change the rules for the next regularly scheduled census, he's going to run into some serious legal headwinds. First, his right to make such decisions would be challenged from many different quarters. More importantly, trying to exclude non-citizens from the count (or from apportionment) would be illegal (and is something he lost on, in court, the LAST time he tried to muck around with the census).
   
   There is only one thing that is crystal clear: If Trump and the Republicans were to successfully exclude undocumented immigrants, from either being counted or just from being represented, that would hurt several blue states, most notably California. (It would also hurt some red states, like Texas, but it would hurt more blue states). It is very improbable that California (or New York, or Illinois, or Washington, or Oregon, or New Jersey) would take that lying down. You could well end up in a situation where red states elect a House delegation whose size is dictated by the "Trump census" and where blue states elect a House delegation whose size is dictated by the "non-Trump census." When those delegations showed up in Washington, with multiple people elected for some of the same seats, then there would be a bona fide constitutional crisis.
   
   
2. Law Enforcement, Part I: This week, someone in D.C. beat up Edward Coristine, the 19-year-old computer programmer and former DOGEy known as "Big Balls." It's not clear that the attackers, who were attempting a carjacking, had any knowledge of Coristine's connection to the administration. He was with his "significant other" at the time of the attack; it's not known if the incident caused her to deflate. In any case, two 15-year-olds have already been arrested and charged.
   
   In response to this news, Trump freaked out, and went on several rants about how crime in Washington, DC, is out of control. That is TrumpSpeak for "D.C. sure does have a lot of Black people." In truth, crime in the District is at a 30-year low (or, at least, it was 3 weeks before Joe Biden left office). Anyhow, Trump is using the attack on "Big Balls" as an excuse to order federal law enforcement to begin patrolling D.C. He is also thinking about deploying the National Guard, a force he has clearly begun to think of as his own, personal brownshirts security apparatus.
   
   
3. Law Enforcement, Part II: Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) is about to be primaried by the plenty-fascist Texas AG Ken Paxton. So, the Senator has some motivation to burnish his own fascist credentials. And yesterday, he announced that the White House had agreed to send FBI agents to arrest the Texas lawmakers who are currently doing some quorum busting.
   
   It is, of course, perfectly legal to skip work in this country, and even to leave your home state while doing so. Consequently, it's hard to imagine what cause of action the FBI would have for arresting any of these folks. And do recall that an officer or agent can be held personally liable for an illegal arrest, under some circumstances. So, they might not be too eager to be a part of this plan. Meanwhile, Gov. J.B. Pritzker (D-IL) has already made clear that Illinois State Troopers have jurisdiction, and have the right to protect anyone within the borders of Illinois from any sort of external force.
   
   
4. Numerology: In the single most foreseeable development of the week, Trump has found a propagandist to announce the "real" numbers on job creation. It's Stephen Moore, who has a BA and an MA in economics, and has spent his entire career as a TV commentator and think tanker. He is best known as the chief economist for the Heritage Foundation.
   
   During a press conference held in the Oval Office, Moore declared that job creation is actually going great, and that any downturns are because the Biden-controlled BLS overcounted the number of jobs created during that administration by 1.5 million. Moore and Trump then had a spirited discussion about whether that was the result of incompetence or malfeasance. Moore also said that Trump's policies have already put almost $7,000 into the pockets of the average American family.
   
   The problem with fantasy numbers is... well, reality. We suspect that most families are going to notice that they are not, in fact, $7,000 richer (and that's before any impact of the trade war; see above). Meanwhile, it's pretty hard to monkey around with the numbers for unemployment claims, because actual money has to go out. And unemployment claims just hit their highest level since the height of the pandemic (specifically, November 2021), which is what you would expect if the population was growing, but not many new jobs were being created.
   
   
5. Seeds of Disunion: Let us keep in mind that when he ran for president each time, Donald Trump presented himself as the champion of blue-collar workers. And many blue-collar workers, particularly those who are white and male, supported him with their votes. One recalls, in particular, that nitwit Sean M. O'Brien, president of the Teamsters, who got up on stage and talked about what a friend to unions Trump is.
   
   In a shocking turn of events, the billionaire real estate developer, one famous for stiffing his workers, is not, in fact, a friend of unions. Yesterday, for example, the VA announced that, from this moment forward, it would no longer honor the contracts negotiated through collective bargaining. The reasons were: (1) talking to union leadership wastes valuable time, and (2) union representatives are occupying office space that can be better used for other purposes. Approximately 80% of VA employees lost their union-negotiated employment rights as a result of this announcement.
   
   The federal government, of course, can do a lot of things that private businesses cannot do—like unilaterally cancel an agreed-upon labor contract. What the government cannot do is stop affected employees from decamping for jobs in the private sector. On the whole, government jobs, including VA jobs, offer less in salary, but make up for that with greater job security and better benefits. If the latter stuff—the stuff that is worked out by the union negotiators—is gone, or is at risk of being gone, then they might as well head to the private sector, and the higher salary. Needless to say, if the VA has to get by with fewer and/or lower-quality staff, then the healthcare of veterans will suffer. As a reminder, Trump also presented himself as a champion of the military when he ran for president.
   
   We got an e-mail, very late in the evening, from reader J.A. in Manchester, NH, that conveys a sense of the anger this news has generated. We thought we would share it (and note, we are making the editorial decision to leave it uncensored):

   As many are now aware, the VA has unilaterally ended collective bargaining with most of its employees. The exceptions to this were police and firefighters. The e-mail from the Secretary had language in it stating they were no longer following the statute that compelled collective bargaining between the VA and its employees.
   
   While this in and of itself is bad enough, if the XO compelling this is allowed to stand, then make no mistake: the Administration will likely start dismantling the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (actually, spoiler alert, they're already doing it).
   
   I'm really wondering why the fuck I ever wore a uniform for this country.
   
   And it's not like the "Attorney General" (who apparently slept through ethics class) is going to advise anyone different.
   
   Is there anyone left out there who doesn't see that this fucking guy is running the authoritarian/fascist program, line by line?

   In short—and note that we began writing this item well before that e-mail arrived—we're not the only ones who noticed that Trump has really been leaning into his fascist tendencies this week.
   
   
6. Intel Dump: We don't know if there is any way to prove this, but we suspect that Trump's relationship with much of Wall Street is shaped by the fact that while he always thought of himself as a very successful businessman, he was never treated as a member of "the club." In terms of New York, he was seen as a Queens guy, and the "cool kids" in NYC real estate are the Manhattan guys. More broadly, he was seen as someone who was crass, and shifty, and who benefited not from his amazing business skills, but from exploiting the silver spoon that was in his mouth when he was born.
   
   In any case, unlike most presidents (with Theodore Roosevelt and the other trustbusters being the main exception), Trump often takes potshots against successful businesses and their leaders. Earlier this week, Trump went after JPMorgan and Bank of America, and declared them to be meanies because they refused to accept more than $1 billion of his deposits. The banks aren't saying if that is true, nor explaining the basis for any decisions they have made. But, let's be honest: Would you even accept a $100 deposit from Trump? That's a check that has "bounce" written all over it. And $1 billion is rather more than $100.
   
   Yesterday, Trump's target was Intel Chief Executive Lip-Bu Tan:

   The CEO of INTEL is highly CONFLICTED and must resign, immediately. There is no other solution to this problem. Thank you for your attention to this problem!

   Tan was born in Malaysia, immigrated to the United States, and is a U.S. citizen. However, he is ethnically Chinese, has a Chinese name, and has invested in some Chinese companies. That is enough, it would appear, to confirm that he is "CONFLICTED" and is probably a communist. Pretty odd for a commie to pursue a career as CEO of a major transnational corporation, but there it is. CEOs of the world, unite! Trump's attack on Intel, inasmuch as it could presage some sort of punitive action(s) against the company, was followed by a drop in stock value of about 3.1%. If Trump had increased the value, it would be called a "Trump Bump," so we guess this should be known as a "Trump Dump."
   
   We will note, by the way, that when TR attacked the actual J.P. Morgan, as opposed to the bank that now bears his name, it was not personal, and the Rough Rider's remarks were aimed squarely at business practices, and not at the business itself, or its founder. Unlike some native New Yorkers who became president, Roosevelt was very cognizant of the line between "class" and "crass."
   
   
7. Most Favored Nations: Not all businesses are in Trump's doghouse, though. Extremity Care LLC sells "bandages" made from discarded placentas and other substances. These bandages are marketed as "skin substitutes," and sell for $10,000 per square inch. They have become a hot item in the past couple of years, such that Medicare paid out over $10 billion for the product in 2024.
   
   There is one small problem, however: There is no scientific evidence that the "bandages" work any better than standard treatments. And so, in its waning days, the Biden Administration announced a rule that Medicare would no longer cover the treatment. Trump blasted the decision on Truth Social, and as soon as he took office, despite having pledged to "root out fraud and waste" in the Medicare system, he paused the rule from taking effect. The administration just extended the pause, to at least January 1 of next year.
   
   So, what could be driving Trump's decision-making here? Maybe it's his deep and abiding commitment to choice in medical treatments, even those treatments that are "alternative" or unproven. Or maybe he hates to see discarded placentas go to waste. Or, just maybe, it has something to do with the $5 million that Extremity Care LLC donated to Trump's super PAC, MAGA, Inc. Could be any of these things; they're all equally likely, right?

And now, let us review. There is a poster, first commissioned by the National Holocaust Museum, entitled "Early Warning Signs Of Fascism." That poster was based on an essay by author Laurence W. Britt, entitled "Fascism Anyone?" Both works list 14 indications of a fascist-inclined government. Just for funsies, let's see how many of the 14 items on the list are arguably checked just by the news listed above, all of which comes from just this week:

• Powerful and Continuing Nationalism: Yes; #1, #6
• Disdain for Human Rights: Yes; #1
• Identification of Enemies as a Unifying Cause: Yes; #1, #2, #3, #5, #6
• Supremacy of the Military: No
• Rampant Sexism: No
• Controlled Mass Media: No
• Obsession With National Security: Yes; #6
• Religion and Government Intertwined: No
• Corporate Power Protected: Yes; #7
• Labor Power Suppressed: Yes; #4, #5
• Disdain for Intellectuals & The Arts: Yes; #4
• Obsession With Crime & Punishment: Yes; #2
• Rampant Cronyism & Corruption: Yes; #3, #7
• Fraudulent Elections: Yes; #1, #2

We think you can make a pretty strong case that Trump checked off 10 of the 14 items on the list, or 71.4%, and that is just in one week. It's also not too difficult to come up with things he has done that check the other four boxes; they just didn't happen to take place this week. This exercise also suggests that Trump's very favorite play from the fascist playbook is "Identification of Enemies as a Unifying Cause." That certainly tracks.

We really, really, really don't like deploying extremely loaded terms like "fascist," especially when those terms tend to be used casually (and dubiously) for political and emotional effect. But sometimes, well, if the jackboot fits... (Z)

I Read the News Today, Oh Boy: A Burger or a Wiener?

There were, as is generally the case, two clues as to the headline theme last week. The first was: "[W]e almost wrote headlines that included 'Jackson,' 'Johnson,' 'Kennedy,' 'Washington,' 'McKinley' and 'Taft.' And if we had, despite what it seems, only one of the references would have been to a U.S. president," while the second was "Last week, for the headline game, we wondered if we should use a bookkeeper. This week, we wondered if we should use judges." And here is the solution, courtesy of reader V.M. in Indianapolis, IN:

These are all former Supreme Court Justices:

• Trade War: Today's the Day... Sort Of—William Day or Sandra Day O'Connor
• Redistricting, Part I: Texas Will Indeed Chase Every Last Seat—Samuel Chase or Salmon P. Chase
• Redistricting, Part II: But Red States Are Only Half the Story—Joseph Story
• I Read the News Today, Oh Boy: Black Coffee—Hugo Black
• This Week in Schadenfreude: White Whine—Byron White or Edward Douglass White
• This Week in Freudenfreude: Apparently, the Butler Didn't Do It—Pierce Butler

Today's headline adds Warren Burger to the list. As to the clues, among justices with a "presidential" name, only William Howard Taft actually was a president. Howell and Robert and Ketanji Brown Jackson, Thomas and William Johnson, Anthony Kennedy, Bushrod Washington and John McKinley were not. Meanwhile, we took a pass on "bookkeeper" 2 weeks ago, but we obviously said "yes" to the judges last week.

Here are the first 50 readers to get it right:

T.F. in Craftsbury Common, VT G.M.K. in Mishawaka, IN B.C. in Chippewa Lake, OH G.W. in Avon, CT V.M. in Indianapolis P.Q. in Metuchen, NJ T.K. in Half Moon Bay, St. Kitts N.C. in Columbus, MS M.H. in Ottawa, ON, Canada R.S. in Milan, OH D.D. in Carversville, PA D.M. in Amagansett, NY M.K. in Long Branch, NJ P.A. in Redwood City, CA J.F. in Fayetteville, NC B.B. in Avon, CT D.E. in High Springs, FL K.M. in Ypsilanti, MI D.P. in Minneapolis, MN E.B. in North Liberty, IA P.R. in Havertown, PA J.N. in Zionsville, IN J.L. in Walnut Creek, CA A.A. in Branchport, NY S.T. in Federal Way, WA

M S. in New York City, NY T.B. in Detroit, MI M.Z. in Sharon, MA M.W. in Altea, Spain R.A. in Chesterfield, MO R.E. in Birmingham, AL J.M. in Silver Spring, MD C.B. in Fresno, CA S.K. in Ardmore, PA R.S. in Pittsgrove, NJ W.V. in Andover, MN D.W. in State College, PA M.M. in Alexandria, MN B.A. in Edmond, OK S.W. in Corvallis, OR G.K. in Blue Island, IL D.M. in Oakland, CA K.H. in Albuquerque, NM L.W. in Los Angeles, CA Z.K. in Albany, NY B.N. in San Rafael, CA B.H. in Mainz, Germany K.S. in New Orleans, LA C.S. in Tampa, FL H.B. in State College, PA

The 50th correct response was received at 9:47 a.m. PT on Friday.

For this week's theme, it relies on one word per headline, and it's in the Trivial Pursuit category Language. For a hint, we'll tell you that the staff dachshunds heartily approved of this theme.

If you have a guess, send it to comments@electoral-vote.com with subject line August 8 Headlines.

Thank you for your attention to this problem! (Z)

This Week in Schadenfreude: Gabbard Getting Flak from All Sides

The political evolution of DNI Tulsi Gabbard has been quite a thing. It's not totally crazy, and is not as obviously opportunistic as Robert F. Kennedy's "reinventing" himself. Basically, she was a left-wing populist who became a right-wing populist. There isn't all that much daylight between those two groups, particularly if you are a religious left-wing populist, and she is (she's not an evangelical Christian, but she is a pretty fundamentalist Hindu, and there's a fair bit of overlap there).

Still, just because her rightward shift might be honestly come by, Gabbard isn't really a great fit in the Trump administration. First of all, some of her ideas just don't align with MAGA. Second, there is still plenty of reason to believe she's a Russian asset, either knowingly or not. Third, she's not buddy-buddy with the true Trump insiders, like Stephen Miller and Stephen Cheung (maybe if she changed her name to Stephen Gabbard?). Fourth, and finally, having been a Democrat, and in particular a Democratic officeholder, for many years is an apostasy that some MAGA types will never forget or forgive.

This is why Gabbard, particularly at a time when some high-profile heads are likely to roll, has been desperately trying to save her job by cooking up a new Obama scandal. Actually, if that's the metaphor we're going with, it's more like reheating an old Obama scandal. She's trying desperately to squeeze just a bit more juice out of the Russia collusion story, and the fact that Obama is hated by Trump and by the MAGA crowd, by asserting that claims made by Obama and others about Russian involvement in the 2016 elections constituted some sort of crime.

Gabbard's efforts are... not going well, to say the least. On the left, people remember that she was not only a Democrat at one time, but also that she often spoke out forcefully about the issues of the day. After all, she did fancy herself a candidate for president in 2020, and so she needed to make a name for herself (she eventually won 2 whole delegates, by collecting a total of 103 votes in American Samoa). And while she was trying to establish a lane for herself, in 2018, she appeared on Joe Rogan's podcast to explain that, of course the Russians interfered in the 2016 election. That clip has been going viral on social media for the last couple of weeks. It would seem that some people think she's a hypocrite (or, that she also should have herself arrested as a criminal).

On the right, people don't care so much about consistency. What they DO care about is being able to tote Donald Trump's water effectively, in hopes of selling the story to at least some voters. However, Gabbard has been unable to do that. The DNI appeared on Fox this week to take some batting practice against softball questions lobbed by Fox entertainer Laura Ingraham. Gabbard was asked to present her evidence for her claims—and, on that channel, that is basically an invitation to deliver a free, 2-minute political ad. And Gabbard directed viewers' attention to the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment ordered by Obama, implying that the existence of this document has not been made public before.

The first problem is that it has been made public. The second is that it was made public in the report on Russian involvement in the 2016 election prepared by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. The third is that the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, at that time, was run by Republicans, and yet the Committee agreed with the conclusions of the intelligence community. The final problem is that one of the Republican senators who took a key role in preparing that report was Marco Rubio, who is now: (1) Secretary of State, and (2) a Trump insider. Needless to say, it is not great for Gabbard to involve Rubio here in any way, if she's trying to keep from being canned. It is even worse for her, very likely, that she tried to go on Fox to promote the Obama conspiracy theory, and she fell flat on her face. That will not please Fox Viewer #1.

So, Gabbard is having a rough week. And, let's be honest, she deserves it after her shady behavior. (Z)

This Week in Freudenfreude: Another Glass Ceiling Goes Kaput

MAGA nation has a very curious orientation toward women's sports. On one hand, they are obsessed with guaranteeing the integrity of competition in girls'/women's high school/college sports, and making sure that the several dozen trans girl/women athletes across the nation are not allowed to compete.

On the other hand, they are generally disdainful of women in professional sports, with particular derision for the WNBA. Part of the issue is that the WNBA was, at least at its outset, supported by the NBA. So, some right-wingers described/describe the WNBA as DEI basketball. On top of that, the most popular WNBA player right now is Caitlin Clark, who is white. She has been the subject of some less-than-kindly treatment from some of her fellow WNBA players, most notably Angel Reese, who is Black. This has caused many on the right to portray Clark as some version of a martyr, although she has pointedly distanced herself from the carping that has been done, ostensibly on her behalf.

A new "chapter" in hostility to the WNBA has commenced in the last couple weeks or so (and please skip this paragraph and the next two if you don't want to encounter PG-13 terms). On at least six occasions, someone in the crowd has thrown an object onto the court while the games were underway. The headlines in nearly all newspapers, which try to keep things PG, identify the objects as "a sex toy." The problem is that you actually need a bit more detail to fully appreciate the implications of the object being thrown. In all cases, it's been a dildo, usually a green-colored one.

The group ostensibly responsible for this is a bunch of crypto bros, who created a meme coin called Green Dildo Coin (DILDO). They have spoken to reporters, and claim it's all in good fun. However, it is dangerous to throw objects onto a court while athletes are running up and down; eventually, someone will twist an ankle or tear an ACL. Beyond that, one can hardly miss the sexist undertones of throwing a rubber dick into the middle of a female sporting event. And, if one DID miss those undertones, both Cosmopolitan and Glamour have published pieces explaining them in detail.

Now, is it fair to ascribe this (primarily) to right wingers? Yeah, we think so. Crypto backers, particularly those who are young and male, certainly lean pretty hard in that direction. Similarly, someone who does not see, or does not care about, the sexist message they are sending (even if it's not their intent) is more likely than not to be right-leaning, we think. And what sealed the deal for us, in terms of our conclusions, was when Donald Trump Jr. posted a "fun" AI-generated image of his father standing on the roof of the White House, and throwing a green dildo at a group of WNBA players below.

All of this is lead-up to the actual subject of this item, which we chose, in part, because there's been some interest in this subject in the last couple of Q&As and mailbags. In 1997, nearly 30 years ago, the NBA hired its first female referees (Violet Palmer and Dee Kantner). A decade ago, the NFL followed suit (Sarah Thomas). Just 3 years ago, FIFA got on board for the World Cup (Stéphanie Frappart). And this weekend, Major League Baseball will join the club, when umpire Jen Pawol takes the field for the Marlins-Braves series. She'll work the bases for both games of Saturday's doubleheader, and will be behind the plate on Sunday. This is "substitute" duty, filling in for regular umpires who are on a break. Pawol will likely bounce back and forth between the major and minor leagues for a couple of years, and then might get a full-time MLB job, if she does well.

There are, of course, many right wingers slamming the promotion as a DEI hire. That is laughable. First of all, Major League Baseball got rid of its DEI programs earlier this year, at the behest of Trump. So, either Pawol is not DEI, or else Trump and his minions must admit that when businesses and universities promise Trump they will end DEI, they are just pulling the wool over his eyes. It is also worth noting that MLB is the most conservative of the four major sports, and is run by a Trump supporter in the form of Commissioner Rob Manfred. So, you're probably not looking at a bunch of closet social justice warriors here.

Most importantly, it is HARD to move up the umpiring ranks, because it's a pretty sweet gig, and Pawol is clearly abundantly qualified. She went to one of the two umpiring academies, and graduated near the top of her class. That means she undoubtedly knows what the correct call is if a fielder takes off their glove and throws it at the ball, and that she knows what to do if the baseball and the runner arrive at first base at the same time. She has been working her way up the minor-league ladder since 2016. And while MLB does not share the scores it assigns to every umpire, Pawol clearly got good ones, because she has been promoted several times, and she's also drawn some special assignments (e.g., working championship games).

We suppose the main point here is that, whether or not you have DEI programs in the world, change is going to happen, and that includes greater representation. MAGA Nation (and others) can dislike it, and can push back against it, and can maybe slow it down a little, but they can't stop it. There isn't too much footage out there of Pawol at work, but we've seen some of the footage that does exist, and she seems solid. Good luck to her this weekend, and here's hoping she eventually does get that permanent promotion.

Have a good weekend, all! (Z)

P.S.: If a fielder takes their glove off, throws it at the ball, and misses, that's a no-call. If the glove makes contact, that is a ground-rule triple (or a home run, at the discretion of the umpire). If a runner and the ball arrive at the same moment, the runner is out. Despite the old chestnut that "ties go to the runner," the MLB rulebook makes clear that the base "belongs" to the defense until the moment that the runner takes possession, which requires arriving ahead of the ball.

---

If you wish to contact us, please use one of these addresses. For the first two, please include your initials and city.

• questions@electoral-vote.com    For questions about politics, civics, history, etc. to be answered on a Saturday
• comments@electoral-vote.com   For "letters to the editor" for possible publication on a Sunday
• corrections@electoral-vote.com To tell us about typos or factual errors we should fix
• items@electoral-vote.com            For general suggestions, ideas, etc.

To download a poster about the site to hang up, please click here.

---

Email a link to a friend.

---The Votemaster and Zenger